Thursday, April 25, 2013

The New York Timeshas a front page story up, today, about this morning's lead editorial in the scientific journal Blood. The lead editorial is signed by a stunning array of practicioners -- and will be hard for companies like Novartis, Merck and Pfizer to ignore.

The better strategy here, I think, would be to constructively engage these doctors and patient advocacy groups, acknowledge the plain legitimacy of the issue -- and begin to work toward a less "patchworked" system of rebates and incentives, on price.

We shall see -- but here in America, the implementation of Obamacare is going to force this discussion forward, as well. [Even the Novartis Gleevec®India patent row gets a mention in the Times.] No, this issue is not going to just fade away. . . .

. . . .Prices for cancer drugs have been part of the debate over health care costs for several years. But the decision by so many specialists, from more than 15 countries on five continents, to band together is a sign that doctors, who are on the front lines of caring for patients, are now taking a more active role in resisting high prices.

Some of the doctors who signed on to the commentary said they were inspired by physicians at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who last fall refused to use a new colon cancer drug, Zaltrap, because it was twice as expensive as another drug without being better.

After those doctors publicized their objections in an Op-Ed column in The New York Times, Sanofi, which markets Zaltrap, effectively cut the price in half.

What impact the new commentary will have remains to be seen. The authors, however, call merely for a dialogue on pricing to begin. . . .

Obviously, this issue bears watching -- for anyone who follows, invests in, or works for any multinational pharmaceutical company. So we will.

More FDA Resources. . .

Blog Archive

Senator Grassley's Concern

stats

FDA Drug Facts

The Condor. . . .

Legal Stuff; Creative Commons Statement 2008-2015

Nothing written, appearing, or linked to, on this site is intended to be individual legal, or investment, advice. Consult a financial or legal adviser before making any trade, or any other decision, based anything you read, or see, on this website. This website treats all U.S. viewers' visitor-paths -- and visits -- as public data. If you are from Europe, understand that this site can see -- but will not disclose to the public -- your visitor-path, in compliance with applicable E.U. directives. All material on this website is derived from public documents, and/or edited, modified, and derived from public domain sources, or in some cases, originally-created by the author(s) of this site. Any use of any proprietary image, document or other data is genuinely-intended by the author(s) to fall under the common-law "fair use" doctrine, as criticism of, and commentary on, matters of substantial public concern -- among them, the for-profit health care system in the Americas. If any person wishes to dispute this assertion of "fair use", please leave a comment in any of the comment-boxes, specifically-identifying the challenged material, and the basis for the challenge, on this site. The Site Administrator(s) will promptly consider the claim. In the same comment-box, the Site Administrator(s) will indicate the site's position on any such claim. This site is not-for-profit. Share, and share-a-like, licenses granted in, and to, all content. Copy-left 2008 though 2016.